Kennesaw State University
Marietta
Climate Assessment for
Learning, Living and Working
August 25, 2015
1
Climate In Higher Education
Community
Members
Create and
Distribute
of
Knowledge
Climate
(Living,
Working,
Learning)
Barcelo, 2004; Bauer, 1998, Kuh & Whitt, 1998; Hurtado, 1998, 2005; Ingle, 2005; Milhem, 2005; Peterson,
1990; Rankin, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2005; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Smith, 2009; Tierney, 1990; Worthington, 2008
2
Assessing Campus Climate
• Campus Climate is a construct
What is it?
Definition?
• Current attitudes, behaviors, and
standards and practices of employees
and students of an institution
How is it
measured?
• Personal Experiences
• Perceptions
• Institutional Efforts
Rankin & Reason, 2008
3
Campus Climate & Students
How students
experience their
campus environment
influences both
learning and
developmental
outcomes.1
1
2
3
Discriminatory
environments have a
negative effect on
student learning.2
Research supports the
pedagogical value of
a diverse student
body and faculty on
enhancing learning
outcomes.3
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005
Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedron, 1999; Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005.
Hale, 2004; Harper & Quaye , 2004; Harper, & Hurtado, 2009; Hurtado, 2003.
4
Campus Climate & Faculty/Staff
The personal and
professional
development of
employees including
faculty members,
administrators, and staff
members are impacted
by campus climate.1
Faculty members who
judge their campus
climate more
positively are more
likely to feel personally
supported and perceive
their work unit as more
supportive.2
Research underscores the
relationships between (1)
workplace discrimination
and negative job/career
attitudes and (2)
workplace encounters with
prejudice and lower
health/well-being..3
1Settles,
Cortina, Malley, and Stewart, 2006
2002
3Costello, 2012; Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2007;
2Sears,
5
Projected Outcomes
KSU-Marietta will add to their knowledge base
with regard to how constituent groups currently
feel about their particular campus climate and
how the community responds to them (e.g.,
work-life issues, curricular integration, intergroup/intra-group relations, respect issues).
KSU-Marietta will use the results of the
assessment to inform current/on-going work.
6
Setting the Context for
Beginning the Work
Examine
the
Research
• Review work
already
completed
Preparation
Assessment
Follow-up
• Readiness of
each campus
• Examine the
climate
• Building on
the successes
and
addressing
the
challenges
7
Transformational Tapestry Model©
Access
Retention
Assessment
Research
University
Policies/Service
Baseline
Organizational
Challenges
Scholarship
Current
Campus
Climate
Local / Sate /
Regional
Environments
Systems
Analysis
Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment
Advanced
Organizational
Challenges
Intergroup &
Intragroup
Relations
Curriculum
Pedagogy
Consultant
Recommendations
External
Relations
Access
Retention
Symbolic
Actions
Research
University
Policies/Service
Educational
Actions
Transformation
via
Intervention
Administrative
Actions
Fiscal
Actions
Scholarship
Transformed
Campus
Climate
Curriculum
Pedagogy
Intergroup &
Intragroup
Relations
External
Relations
© 2001
8
Project Overview
Phase I
• Assessment Tool Development and Implementation
Phase II
• Data Analysis
Phase III
• Final Report and Presentation
9
Phase I
Process
Spring/Fall 2014
to Date
Meetings with the CCCATF to develop
the survey instrument
The CCCATF reviewed multiple drafts of
the survey, using the Kennesaw campus
survey as a template, and approved the
final survey instrument.
The final survey was distributed to the
entire KSU-Marietta community via an
invitation from President Koger.
10
Instrument/Sample
Final instrument
• 103 questions and additional space for
respondents to provide commentary
(20 qualitative and 83 quantitative)
• On-line or paper & pencil options
Sample = Population
• All students, faculty, staff, and
administrators of KSU-Marietta’s
community received an invitation to
participate.
11
Survey Limitations
Selfselection
bias
Response
rates
Social
desirability
Caution in
generalizing results
for constituent
groups with low
response rates
12
Method Limitation
Data were not reported for
groups of fewer than 5
individuals where identity could
be compromised
Instead, small groups were
combined to eliminate possibility
of identifying individuals
13
Phase II
Process
to
Fall 2014/Winter 2015
Date
Quantitative and qualitative
analyses conducted
14
Phase III
Spring/Summer 2015
Report draft reviewed by the
CCCATF
Final report submitted to KSUMarietta
Presentation to KSU-Marietta
campus community
15
Results
Response Rates
16
Who are the respondents?
919 people responded to the call to
participate
12% overall response rate
Student Response Rates
12%
6%
• Undergraduate (n = 662)
• Graduate (n = 50)
18
Employee Response Rates
27%
32%
64%
• Faculty (n = 88)
• Staff (n = 95)
• Administrators (n = 24)
19
Results
Additional Demographic
Characteristics
20
Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (%)
(Duplicated Total)
21
Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (%)
(Unduplicated Total)
22
Respondents by Position (%)
23
Respondents by Gender Identity and
Position Status (%)
Note: Responses with n’s less than 5 are not presented in the figure
24
Respondents by Sexual Identity and
Position Status (n)
Note: Responses with n’s less than 5 are not presented in the figure
25
21% (n = 191) of Respondents Identified as Having a
Single Disability or Multiple Disabilities that
Substantially Affected Major Life Activities
Disability
n
%
Mental learning disability
69
7.5
Mental health/psychological condition
46
5.0
Chronic diagnosis or medical condition
23
2.5
Visually-impaired or complete loss of vision
22
2.4
Physical/mobility condition that affects walking
20
2.2
Hearing impaired or complete loss of hearing
17
1.8
Physical/mobility condition that does not affect
walking
10
1.1
8
0.9
38
4.1
Speech/communication condition
Other
26
Respondents by
Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%)
27
Citizenship Status
Citizenship
n
%
U.S. citizen
855
93.0
Permanent resident
50
5.4
A visa holder (F-1, J-1, H1-B, A, L, G, E and TN)
25
2.7
6
0.7
<5
---
Other legally documented status
Undocumented resident
28
Employee Respondents by Age (n)
Note: Responses with n’s less than 5 are not presented in the figure
29
Employee Respondents’ Dependent
Care Status by Position (%)
Note: Responses with n’s less than 5 are not presented in the figure
30
Faculty Academic Department/Work
Unit Affiliations
Academic Division
n
%
The School of Arts and Sciences
36
40.9
The School of Engineering Technology and
Management
16
18.2
The School of Computing and Software Engineering
8
9.1
The School of Engineering
8
9.1
The School of Architecture and Construction
Management
7
8.0
Library
5
5.7
31
Staff and Administrator Primary
Work Unit Affiliations
Work Unit
n
%
10
8.4
Campus Services
8
6.7
Career & Counsel Services
7
5.9
UITS
5
4.2
Facilities
32
85 Employee Respondents Reported
Experiencing Financial Hardship…
Manner
n
%
Difficulty supporting family members
38
44.7
Difficulty in affording housing
32
37.6
Difficulty in affording professional memberships,
conferences, professional education
32
37.6
Difficulty in affording health care
29
34.1
Difficulty affording food
22
25.9
Difficulty in traveling to campus
20
23.5
Difficulty in affording child care
17
20.0
Other
10
11.8
Note: Table includes Faculty, Staff, and Administrators who reported having experienced financial hardship (n = 85)
only. Sum does not total 100% as a result of multiple response choices.
33
Student Respondents by Age (n)
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure
34
Student Respondents’ Residence
Campus Housing (40%, n = 283)
Residence
n
%
Howell Hall
38
15.8
Hornet Village 100
37
15.4
Hornet Village 200
52
21.7
Commons Apartments
41
17.1
Courtyard Apartments
61
25.4
University Columns
11
4.6
35
Student Respondents’ Residence
Non-Campus Housing (59%, n = 420)
Residence
n
%
Independently in an apartment/house
201
54.2
Living with family member/guardian
170
45.8
5
0.7
Housing transient (e.g., couch surfing, etc.)
36
Student Respondents’ Average One-way
Commute To KSU- Marietta
Average one-way commute (in minutes)
n
%
10 or fewer
267
29.1
11–20
143
15.6
21–30
152
16.5
31–40
132
14.4
41–50
98
10.7
51–60
53
5.8
61 or over
60
6.5
37
Student Respondents’ Income by
Dependency Status and Position (%)
Note: Responses with n’s less than 5 are not presented in the figure
38
311 Undergraduate Students and 17 Graduate
Students Reported Experiencing Financial
Hardship…
Manner
n
%
Difficulty purchasing my books/supplies/course materials
Difficulty affording tuition
Difficulty in affording housing
Difficulty affording food
Difficulty in affording other campus fees
Difficulty in affording health care
Difficulty participating in social events
217
206
186
140
106
103
91
66.2
62.8
56.7
42.7
32.3
31.4
27.7
Difficulty participating in co-curricular events or activities
86
26.2
Difficulty commuting to campus
Difficulty traveling home during KSU-Marietta breaks
Difficulty in affording child care
80
50
14
24.4
15.2
4.3
Note: Table includes Student respondents who reported having experienced financial hardship (n = 328) only. Sum
does not total 100% as a result of multiple response choices.
39
How Student Respondents Were
Paying For College
Form
Federal loans
Family contribution
Merit scholarship
Grant
Personal contribution/job
Credit card
Private loans
n
%
376
292
258
244
179
95
60
52.8
41.0
36.2
34.3
25.1
13.3
8.4
Private scholarship
49
6.9
Need-based scholarship
GI bill
Federal Work/Study
Other
28
26
12
3.9
3.7
1.7
30
4.2
40
Student Respondents’ Participation in
Clubs or Organizations at KSU-Marietta
Clubs/Organizations
n
%
I do not participate in any clubs/organizations
367
51.5
Leadership & Service
107
15.0
Resident Assistant/House Manager
30
20.7
First-Year Experience
31
21.4
Fraternity/Sorority
46
31.7
Orientation leader
16
11.0
Student Ambassador
5
3.4
Student government
11
7.6
6
4.1
Peer tutor
41
Student Respondents’ Participation in
Clubs or Organizations (cont.)
Clubs/Organizations
Clubs & Activities
n
%
229
32.2
127
40.7
Arts & Culture
14
4.5
Competition teams
60
19.2
Multicultural
16
5.1
Performing arts
13
4.2
Recreation/leisure
23
7.4
Religion & faith-based/spiritual
15
4.8
Special interest
Spirit
Student media
36
0
8
11.5
0.0
2.6
Academic & Professional
42
Student Respondents’ Participation in
Clubs or Organizations(cont.)
Clubs/Organizations
Sports & Recreation
n
%
48
6.7
Club sports
23
47.9
Intramural sports
25
52.1
69
9.7
An organization not listed here
43
Student Respondents’ Time Spent on
Experiential Learning Activities
Time Spent
n
%
I don’t participate in any experiential learning activities
467
65.6
1–5
73
10.3
6–10
41
5.8
11–20
32
4.5
21–30
22
3.1
31–40
27
3.8
More than 40
42
5.9
44
Student Respondents’
Cumulative G.P.A. (n)
Less than 2.0
2.0-.2.4
2.5-2.9
3.0-3.4
3.5-4.0
16
37
141
218
278
45
Findings
46
“Comfortable”/“Very Comfortable” with:
Overall Campus Climate (75%)
Department/Work Unit Climate (72%)
Classroom Climate
(Undergraduate, 79%; Graduate, 86%;
Faculty, 87%)
47
Comfort With Overall Climate
Difference
• Staff and Faculty respondents less comfortable than
Graduate Student and Undergraduate Student respondents
48
Comfort With Department/Work Unit
Climate
Differences
• Women Faculty, Staff, and Administrator respondents
less comfortable than Men Faculty, Staff, and
Administrator respondents
• Faculty, Staff, and Administrator Respondents of Color
and Multiple Race Faculty, Staff, and Administrator
respondents less comfortable than White Faculty, Staff,
and Administrator respondents
49
Comfort With Classroom Climate
Differences
• Undergraduate Student respondents less comfortable
than Graduate Student respondents and Faculty
respondents
• Women Faculty and Student respondents less
comfortable than Men Faculty and Student respondents
• Faculty and Student Respondents of Color less
comfortable than White Faculty and Student respondents
and Multiracial Faculty and Student respondents
• Low-Income Student respondents less comfortable than
Not Low-Income Student respondents
50
Challenges and Opportunities
51
Personal Experiences of Exclusionary,
Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct
21%
• 194 respondents indicated
that they had personally
experienced exclusionary
(e.g., shunned, ignored),
intimidating, offensive and/or
hostile conduct at KSUMarietta in the past year
52
Personal Experiences of Exclusionary,
Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct
7%
• 61 of those respondents
said the conduct interfered
with their ability to work or
learn at KSU Marietta
15%
• 133 of those respondents said
the conduct did not interfere
with their ability to work or
learn at KSU Marietta
53
Forms of Experienced Exclusionary,
Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct
n
%
Isolated or left out
66
34.0
Deliberately ignored or excluded
65
33.5
Intimidated/bullied
43
22.2
Target of derogatory remarks
37
19.1
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 194).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
54
Personally Experienced Based on…(%)
Gender/Gender Identity (n=53)
Age (n=36)
Position (n=35)
Race (n=27)
Academic Performance (n=22)
Ethnicity (n=22)
Philosophical Views (n=22)
Major Field of Study (n=21)
27
19
18
14
11
11
11
11
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 194).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
55
Personal Experiences of Exclusionary,
Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct
as a Result of Gender Identity (%)
(n = 88)¹
(n = 98)¹
(n = 7)²
(n = 42)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.
² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.
56
Personal Experiences of Exclusionary,
Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct
as a Result of Age (%)
(n = 47)¹
(n = 37)¹
(n = 29)¹
(n = 26)¹
(n = 21)¹
(n = 18)¹
(n = 7)¹
(n = 9)²
(n < 5)²
(n = 5)²
(n = 7)²
(n = 5)²
(n = 5)²
(n = 0)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.
² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
57
Personal Experiences of Exclusionary,
Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct
as a Result of Position (%)
(n = 124)¹
(n = 8)¹
(n = 28)¹
(n = 7)¹
(n = 27)¹
(n = 13)²
(n < 5)²
(n = 7)²
(n < 5)²
(n = 10)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.
² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure
58
Location of Experienced Conduct
n
%
In a class/lab/clinical setting
58
29.9
In a public space at KSU-Marietta
38
19.6
In a meeting with a group of people
36
18.6
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 194).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
59
Source of Experienced Conduct by
Position Status (%)
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 194).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
60
What did you do?
Personal responses:





Was angry (40%)
Ignored it (30%)
Felt embarrassed (28%)
Told a friend (23%)
Avoided the harasser (21%)
Reporting responses:





Reported it to a KSU-Marietta employee/official (11%)
Didn’t report it for fear the complaint wouldn’t be taken seriously (9%)
Didn’t know to whom to go (9%)
Sought support from a KSU-Marietta resource (9%)
Did report it but did not feel the complaint was taken seriously (4%)
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 194).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
61
Qualitative Theme
Experienced Exclusionary Conduct
Discriminatory comments based on
race and gender
62
Unwanted Sexual Contact
at KSU-Marietta
18 respondents (2%) experienced
unwanted sexual contact at
KSU-Marietta
63
Unwanted Sexual Contact at KSUMarietta for Undergraduate Students
LGBQ
Undergraduate
Student respondents
(7%, n = 5)
Undergraduate
Student respondents
(2%, n = 14)
Women
Undergraduate
Student respondents
(5%, n = 10)
64
Location of Unwanted
Sexual Contact
On Campus (13 respondents)
65
Source of Unwanted
Sexual Contact
Acquaintance/
Friend
(50%, n = 9)
Student
(56%, n = 10)
66
Response to
Unwanted Sexual Contact
I told a friend
33%
I left the situation
immediately
33%
I was angry
33%
I was afraid
33%
I felt
embarrassed
44%
I ignored it
39%
I did nothing
39%
67
Employee Respondents Who
Seriously Considered Leaving
KSU-Marietta
51% of Faculty
(n = 45)
61% of Staff
(n = 58)
71% of
Administrators
(n = 17)
68
Employee Respondents Who
Seriously Considered Leaving
KSU-Marietta
By Staff Position • 73% of Monthly (Salary) Staff
Status
• 42% of Biweekly (Hourly) Staff
By Faculty
Position Status
By Racial Identity
• 64% of Non-Tenure Track Faculty
(Cont.)
• 52% of Tenure-Track Faculty
• 30% of Non-Tenure Track Faculty
(Temp.)
• 58% of White respondents
• 46% of Respondents of Color
69
Employee Respondents Who
Seriously Considered Leaving
KSU-Marietta
By Sexual
Identity
• 61% of LGBQ respondents
• 58% of Heterosexual respondents
By Disability
Status
• 61% of respondents with No Disabilities
• 46% of respondents with Single
Disabilities
By Citizenship
Status
• 59% of U.S. Citizen respondents
• 30% of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents
70
Reasons Employee Respondents
Seriously Considered Leaving
KSU-Marietta
n
%
Consolidation
80
66.7
Financial reasons
44
36.7
Limited opportunities for advancement
39
32.5
Tension in department with supervisor/manager
31
25.8
Interested in a position at another institution
26
21.7
Climate was unwelcoming
24
20.0
Note: Table includes answers from only those Faculty and Staff/Administrator respondents who indicated
that they considered leaving (n = 120).
71
Qualitative Themes
Why Considered leaving…
The merger
72
38% (n = 249) of Undergraduate Students
Seriously Considered Leaving KSU
Marietta
 There were no significant differences based
on selected demographics (gender identity,
racial identity, sexual identity, firstgeneration status, citizenship status, income
status, and disability status)
73
Reasons Student Respondents
Considered Leaving KSU-Marietta
Reason
n
%
112
42.7
78
29.8
Climate was unwelcoming
56
21.4
Financial reasons
38
14.9
Consolidation
Transfer/I never intended to graduate from
KSU-Marietta
74
Qualitative Themes
Why Considered leaving…
The merger
75
Perceptions
76
Respondents who observed conduct or communications
directed towards a person/group of people that created an
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile working
or learning environment…
20% (n = 186)
77
Form of Observed Exclusionary,
Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct
Derogatory remarks
Deliberately ignored or excluded
Person felt isolated or left out
Intimidated/bullied
Person singled out as the spokesperson for their identity group
Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/
promoted based on his/her identity
Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 186).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
n
%
111
59.7
68
36.6
61
32.8
44
23.7
30
16.1
27
14.5
78
Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating,
Offensive, or Hostile Conduct Based
on…(%)
Ethnicity (n=42)
Racial Identity (n=41)
Gender/Gender Identity (n=41)
23
22
Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 186).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
22
79
Source of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating,
Offensive, or Hostile Conduct (%)
Source
•
•
•
•
Student (53%)
Faculty Member/Instructor (20%)
Strangers (10%)
Staff Members (7%)
Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 186).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
80
Location of Observed Exclusionary,
Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct
In a public space at KSU-Marietta
33%
n = 61
In a class/lab/clinical setting
30%
n = 55
At a KSU-Marietta event
22%
n = 41
While walking on campus
20%
Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 186).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
n = 38
81
Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating,
Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Select
Demographics (%)
Multiracial (n = 19)
32%
White (n = 104)
19%
People of Color (n = 56)
20%
Women (n = 93)
28%
Men (n = 87)
16%
Multiple Disabilities (n = 19)
44%
No Disability (n = 259)
18%
Single Disability (n = 36)
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
82
Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating,
Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Select
Demographics (%)
83
Qualitative Themes
Observed Conduct
Discrimination
(Largely based on
race and gender)
84
Employee Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust
Hiring Practices
19% (n = 18) of Staff respondents
18% (n = 16) of Faculty respondents
(n < 5) of Administrator respondents
85
Employee Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust
Employment-Related Disciplinary Actions
10% (n = 9) of Faculty respondents
8% (n = 8) of Staff respondents
(n < 5) of Administrator respondents
86
Employee Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust
Practices Related to Promotion
10% (n = 9) of Faculty respondents
8% (n = 8) of Staff respondents
(n < 5) of Administrator respondents
87
Most Common Bases for
Discriminatory Employment Practices
Nepotism
Position
Gender/Gender
Identity
Philosophical
Views
Educational
Credentials
Racial Identity
88
Qualitative Themes
Discriminatory Employment Practices
Favoritism
89
Work-Life Issues
SUCCESSES & CHALLENGES
The majority of Employee respondents expressed
positive attitudes about work-life issues.
90
All Employee Respondents
Examples of Successes
77% indicated that their
supervisors provided
them with resources to
pursue professional
development
opportunities
77% of Employee
respondents found
KSU-Marietta
supportive of flexible
work schedules
74% of were
comfortable taking
leave that they were
entitled to without
fear that it may
affect their
job/careers
91
All Employee Respondents
Examples of Challenges
36% of Employee respondents felt that they worked harder than their
colleagues/co-workers did to achieve the same recognition
29% were reluctant to bring up issues that concerned them for fear that it
would affect their performance evaluations or tenure/merit/promotion
decisions
20% indicated that their colleagues/co-workers expect them to be the
spokesperson for their identity group
Only 34% believed that salary determinations were clear
92
Work-Life Issues Employee Respondents
Other Successes
• 75% of Employee respondents indicated that they had
colleagues/co-workers who provided them with job/career
advice when they need it
• The majority also noted that KSU-Marietta provided them
with resources to pursue professional development
opportunities (80%), and that they had adequate access to
administrative support (71%).
• 66% found KSU-Marietta supportive of taking leave
• 64% indicated that they had supervisors at KSU-Marietta who
gave them career advice or guidance when they needed it
93
Work-Life Issues Employee Respondents
Other Challenges
• Only 19% of Employee respondents suggested that KSUMarietta provides resources, such as childcare and elder care,
to help employees balance work-life needs.
• 18% indicated that people who do not have children are
burdened with work responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour
work, work weekends) beyond those who do have children
94
Qualitative Themes
Employee’s Work-Life Attitudes
Mixed experiences with
salary clarity
Divergent views of support for
professional development
95
Faculty Respondents
Tenure/Teaching Issues
Examples of Successes
76% of Faculty respondents felt
that their service contributions
were important to
tenure/promotion at KSU-Marietta
63% believed that their colleagues
included them in opportunities that
will help their careers as much as
they do others in their position
96
Faculty Respondents
Tenure/Teaching Issues
Examples of Challenges
Only 27% of Faculty respondents felt that their diversity-related
contributions have been/will be valued for promotion or tenure
57% felt burdened by service responsibilities
52% felt that they performed more work to help students beyond those of
their colleagues with similar performance expectations
42% felt they were pressured by departmental work requirements that occur
outside of their normally scheduled classroom and office hours
Less than half (42%) felt that an appropriate level of importance is placed
on diversity-related research/teaching/service contributions at KSU-Marietta
97
Faculty Respondents
Tenure/Teaching Issues
Other Successes
• A majority of Faculty respondents agreed that KSU-Marietta’s
tenure/promotion process was clear (51%) and reasonable
(64%).
• Few (17%) felt pressured to change their research agendas to
achieve tenure or be promoted at KSU-Marietta.
98
Faculty Respondents
Tenure/Teaching Issues
Other Challenges
• 35% of Faculty respondents felt burdened by service
responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues with similar
performance expectations
• 16% felt they were pressured by continuing education
requirements beyond those of their colleagues with similar
performance expectations
• Less than half (44%) felt that tenure standards/promotion
standards were applied equally to all KSU-Marietta faculty.
99
Tenure/Promotion Standards were Applied
Equally to All KSU-Marietta Faculty by Select
Demographics (%)
100
Student Respondents’ Perceptions
101
Student Respondents’ Perceptions of
Campus Climate
Majority of Student respondents felt valued by faculty
(86%) and other students (84%) in the classroom
Majority reported that KSU-Marietta faculty/instructors
(83%), staff (79%), and administrators (72%) were
genuinely concerned with their welfare
Majority had instructors (77%) and staff (58%) who
they perceived as role models
102
Student Respondents’ Perceptions of
Campus Climate
44% of Student respondents did not see enough
faculty/staff with whom they identified
92% indicated that they had opportunities for academic
success that were similar to those of their classmates
103
Student Respondents Who
Seriously Considered Leaving
KSU-Marietta
38% of responding
Undergraduate
Students (n = 249)
26% of responding
Graduate Students
(n = 13)
104
When Student Respondents
Seriously Considered Leaving
KSU-Marietta
53% in their first year
42% in their second year
20% in their third year
105
Top Reasons Why Student Respondents
Seriously Considered Leaving
KSU-Marietta
Reason
Consolidation
Transfer/I never intended to graduate from
KSU-Marietta
Climate was unwelcoming
Financial reasons
Coursework was not challenging enough
Didn’t offer my major
Coursework was too difficult
n
%
112
42.7
78
29.8
56
39
31
29
27
21.4
14.9
11.8
11.1
10.3
Note: Table includes answers from only those Student respondents who indicated that they considered
leaving (n = 262).
106
Undergraduate Student Respondents’
Academic Success
Women Undergraduate Student respondents perceived
greater academic success than did Men Undergraduate
Student respondents.
There were no additional statistically significant
findings by racial identity, sexual identity, or disability
status.
107
Student Respondents’ Academic
Experiences
108
Student Respondents’ Academic Experiences
79% of Student respondents reported that many of their
courses this year have been intellectually stimulating
79% reported that their academic experience had a
positive influence on their intellectual growth and
interest in ideas
71% reported that they were performing up to their full
academic potential
109
Student Respondents’ Academic Experiences
75% of Student respondents were satisfied with their
academic experience at KSU-Marietta
60% were aware of KSU-Marietta’s
environment/sustainability efforts, initiatives, and
course offerings
110
Students Who were Satisfied with Their
Academic Experience at KSU-Marietta by
Selected Demographics
111
Institutional Actions
112
Campus Initiatives
FACULTY RESPONDENTS
Many Faculty respondents thought the following
POSITIVELY INFLUENCED or WOULD POSITIVELY
INFLUENCE the climate:
Providing
access to
counseling for
people who
have
experienced
harassment
Providing a
clear and fair
process to
resolve
conflict
Providing
career span
development
opportunities
for faculty
Providing
mentorship for
new faculty
113
Campus Initiatives
FACULTY RESPONDENTS
Many Faculty respondents thought the following
POSITIVELY INFLUENCED the climate:
Providing
flexibility for
computing the
probationary
period for tenure
Providing
diversity/crosscultural training
for students,
faculty, and staff
114
Campus Initiatives
FACULTY RESPONDENTS
Less Faculty respondents thought the following
POSITIVELY INFLUENCED the climate:
Providing equity
and diversity
training for
search,
promotion, and
tenure
committees
Promoting KSUMarietta’s
emphasis on
environmental/
sustainability
initiatives and
course offerings
Including
diversity-related
professional
experiences as
one of the criteria
for hiring of
staff/faculty
115
Campus Initiatives
STAFF/ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENTS
Many Staff/Administrator respondents thought the following
POSITIVELY INFLUENCED the climate:
Providing
diversity/cross
cultural training
for staff and
faculty
Providing
career
development
opportunities
for staff was
available at
KSU-Marietta
Providing
mentorship for
new staff
116
Campus Initiatives
STAFF/ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENTS
Many Staff/Administrator respondents thought the following
POSITIVELY INFLUENCED the climate:
Providing
access to
counseling for
people who
have
experienced
harassment
Providing a
clear and fair
process to
resolve
conflicts
Providing
equity and
diversity
training for
hiring
committees
117
Campus Initiatives
STAFF/ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENTS
Many Staff/Administrator respondents thought the following
POSITIVELY INFLUENCED the climate:
Promoting KSUMarietta’s
emphasis on
environmental/
sustainability
initiatives and
course offerings
Considering
diversity-related
professional
experiences as
one of the criteria
for hiring of
staff/faculty
118
Campus Initiatives
STUDENT RESPONDENTS
Many Student respondents thought the following
POSITIVELY INFLUENCED the climate:
Providing
diversity
training for
staff and
faculty
Providing a
person to
address
student
complaints of
classroom
inequity
Increasing
opportunities for
cross-cultural
dialogue among
students and
between faculty,
staff, and
students
119
Campus Initiatives
STUDENT RESPONDENTS
Many Student respondents thought the following
POSITIVELY INFLUENCED the climate:
Providing
effective
faculty
mentorship of
students
Providing
effective
career
counseling
Providing
effective
academic
advisement
120
Campus Initiatives
STUDENT RESPONDENTS
Less Student respondents thought the following
POSITIVELY INFLUENCED the climate:
Incorporating
issues of diversity
and cross-cultural
competence more
effectively into
the curriculum
Promoting
KSU-Marietta’s
emphasis on
environmental/
sustainability
initiatives and
course offerings
121
Qualitative Themes
Institutional Actions - Students
Divergent views on diversity training
122
Summary
Strengths and Successes
Opportunities for Improvement
123
Context
Interpreting the Summary
Although colleges and
universities attempt to foster
welcoming and inclusive
environments, they are not
immune to negative societal
attitudes and discriminatory
behaviors.
As a microcosm of the
larger social environment,
college and university
campuses reflect the
pervasive prejudices of
society.
Classism, Racism,
Sexism, Genderism,
Heterosexism, etc.
(Eliason, 1996; Hall & Sandler, 1984; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hart & Fellabaum, 2008; Malaney, Williams, &
Gellar, 1997; Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010; Smith, 2009;
124
Worthington, Navarro, Loewy & Hart, 2008)
Overall Strengths & Successes
75% of respondents
were comfortable
with the overall
climate, and 72%
with dept/work unit
climate
The majority of
student respondents
thought very
positively about their
academic experiences
at KSU-Marietta
79% of Undergraduate
Student, 86% of
Graduate Student, &
87% of Faculty
respondents were
comfortable with
classroom climate
The majority of
employee respondents
expressed positive
attitudes about worklife issues at KSUMarietta
125
Overall Challenges and Opportunities for
Improvement
21% (n = 194) had
personally
experienced
exclusionary conduct
within the last year
20% (n = 186) had
observed
exclusionary
conduct within the
last year
71% (n = 17) of
Administrator, 61%
(n = 58) of Staff, and
51% (n = 45) of
Faculty respondents
seriously considered
leaving KSUMarietta
2% (n = 18) of all
respondents
experienced
unwanted sexual
contact while at
KSU-Marietta
126
Next Steps
127
Process Forward
Sharing the Report with the Community
Fall 2016
Full Power Point
available on
KSU-Marietta
website
Mariettaccca.kennesaw.edu
Full Report
available on
KSU-Marietta
website/hard
copy in Library
128
Questions and Discussion
Have questions or comments that were not answered here?
Email KSUDiverse@kennesaw.edu and we’ll be happy to address them.
129